Beyond Bigelow & BAASS, After AATIP and on To the Stars...

The Italian incident will be worst than the ramdellsham plot-line.
Its very unfortunate that TTSA went down this road.... episode 4 was the best of the season.

Maybe Trump will have have something spectacular to say on Tucker Friday night.
Overall I give Unidentified a solid C+ borderline B-

I am not sure why there needs to be a second season.... They should just cancel it....This show did not move the needle forward.
These are simply objective facts. Anyhow....ENJOY the FIREWORKS!!! Happy JULY 4th!!

a reply to: beetee

There's nothing extraordinary which requires extraordinary evidence. Fravor does not state Gimbal is a UFO. What he does state based on his 18 years as a fighter pilot who has viewed who knows how many other fighter jets from his cockpit is that Gimbal is not another fighter jet.

originally posted by: coursecatalog
a reply to: 1point92AU

Uhh Buddy, this isn't the political mud pit.

Calling someone an idiot does not count as a valid argument.

Are you here to discuss or disrupt?

I'm not name calling and I gave proof to support my argument.

An idiot is a stupid person. Any person who is going to believe a video game programmer who has never sat for 1 minute in the cockpit of a fighter jet is somehow able to positively ID another fighter jet from a grainy video versus an 18 year veteran fighter jet pilot with over 3,000 hours who has actually ID'd multiple fighter jets over that 18 year period is a stupid person.

i.e. an idiot.

It's literally the dumbest argument in this thread.

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: coursecatalog

I’m afraid that’s not the case. Read the book Ruse: Undercover with an FBI investigator by Robert Eringe as well as Ira Einhorns blog and you’ll see that there is very clearly a problem that Dr Pandolphi has with Dr Green. He makes multiple claims.

Here's yet another item that probably plays into some hard feelings. In Gus Russo's “Is Uncle Sam a closet UFOlogist?” it is now well-known and established that "Tom" is Ron Pandolphi and "Jim" is Kit Green.

Then there were the security breaches that occurred during Operation Stargate itself, which Tom was instrumental in bringing to an end in 1996. By the mid-seventies it was learned that Stargate, which had Aviary members on its board, and other CIA projects, had been massively infiltrated, the target of Scientology’s infamous “Operation Snow White.”

In 1979, eleven highly placed Church executives, including Mary Sue Hubbard (wife of founder L. Ron Hubbard and second in command of the organization), pleaded guilty or were convicted in federal court of obstructing justice, burglary of government offices, and theft of documents and government property.

As far as "Operation Snow White" goes it has also been alleged/theorized that the penetration allowed Scientologists with security clearances to give information (such as top secret project names) to Pat Price that made it seem as if Price was actually "remote viewing" government secrets.

a reply to: The GUT

Forbidden Science 4 has a bit where the remote viewer who 'found' that lost Libyan jet got the info by sleeping with a higher up. No names given.

a reply to: 1point92AU

ID another fighter jet from a grainy video

You said it yourself


“A grainy video”


To ID it as a ufo, would that be any better?

originally posted by: 1point92AU

Fravor does not state Gimbal is a UFO. What he does state based on his 18 years as a fighter pilot who has viewed who knows how many other fighter jets from his cockpit is that Gimbal is not another fighter jet.

...which is a subjective point of view skewed by his own prior UFO "experience".
He's a valid witness for his eyes on TicTac account but is biased (possibly justifiably so) in his third party assessment of the video.


If "they" subsequently come out with an unedited video that shows weird hovering or instantaneous stops and starts, etc - lots of people would take notice.

Until then- you've got what could be an entirely conventional manoeuvre or if you're feeling optimistic...a vectored thrust manoeuvre which would be well within the Aerospace engineering capabilities of the US or Russia.

No one is hating on Fravor....its just very evident he has been swayed in his opinions by his prior "experience"...

Perhaps Justice is an experiencer too (just trying to find answers) and the only people listening were the ones with a "Poorly evidenced threat from Alienz that is unpatriotic to even question" political proposition.

originally posted by: 1point92AU
a reply to: beetee

There's nothing extraordinary which requires extraordinary evidence. Fravor does not state Gimbal is a UFO. What he does state based on his 18 years as a fighter pilot who has viewed who knows how many other fighter jets from his cockpit is that Gimbal is not another fighter jet.

Upon viewing the GIMBAL video, Mick West and David Fravor agree on one thing:

David Fravor in the video posted before:

Wings create lift. When you go like this (rotate 90°) there is no lift and the airplane will start to descent. The airplane (in the gimbal video) just sits there.

Mick West on Metabunk:

You can't just rotate a jet, stop rotating near 90° and keep moving exactly the same as before. Even with a relatively rapid aileron roll the altitude changes.
The GIMBAL video looks more like it's almost hovering, and just rotating in place. It's difficult to see how that could be accomplished with existing technology.

David Fravor concludes: It’s not a jet.

Mick West concludes: Rotating glare caused by a rotating gimbal is a very simple explanation.
He explains and demonstrates it very well in this video. A real eye-opener for me was how he shows the rotation of the glare only occurs when the object is directly ahead of the jet.

a reply to: The GUT

There's an interview with Ron's son, in something like Playgirl, where he claims that his Dad sold access to Soviets. He later recanted this.

There are two very interesting possible outcomes from the remote viewing thing you describe, if such a thing occurred.

1) Price saw giant spheres in Russia on a moving gantry or frame - these later turned out to be correct in terms of their presence which was photographed. I want to say they were located in the Polygon. These, we now know were for building portable nuclear engines (like NERVA). The west assumed, however, that they were for boosting the power of a massive directed energy weapon, based in the 'polygon'.

So, hawks in the West decide we must have our own DEW and space weapons programs and we throw massive amounts at it. Some call it 'Reagans Bluff' claiming he knew it was a dead end but the Soviets would pursue it if they thought the US was.



Let's just rethink that for a second. Remote viewers provide "evidence" of a soviet platform that they think is a directed energy weapon of unbelievable power. The West begins a massive program of trying to build these weapons and put them in space. They prove impractical. The Soviets waste time also trying to catch up to the west. How can we view this considering that fact that Price might have been given this information in some way?

2) Price saw a new type of submarine leave dry dock in Russia. It was wider bodied, and I want to say had a different propulsion system. This was proved later, by photos. Again consider this in light of what GUT has said about SnowWhite.

Then go and read the Hunt For Red October.

a reply to: The GUT

The following is speculative.

Assuming that the information given by Pat Price was correct in terms of objects, but incorrect in terms of purpose, as described in that BBC video I embedded, can we consider the following.

- The Soviets were manufacturing nuclear engines for Tupalovs. Maybe other things.
- Could the diagram in the SERPO documents describe some of that?
-> Could Cash Landrum, the Minot UFO, Rendlesham and other UAP encounters be the result of a Soviet nuclear platform placed aboard some sort of odd looking spy drone?

Could the TTSA video craft be that same technology 40 years out?

a reply to: 1point92AU

So what did he identify it as?
If he has 18 years of xp and he says it was not an unidentified flying object, then what did he identify it as?

a reply to: 1point92AU

Any person who is going to believe a video game programmer who has never sat for 1 minute in the cockpit of a fighter jet is somehow able to positively ID another fighter jet from a grainy video versus an 18 year veteran fighter jet pilot with over 3,000 hours who has actually ID'd multiple fighter jets over that 18 year period is a stupid person.

Calm down....you are reacting emotionally and appealing to authority now. You don't need to be a fighter pilot to ID another fighter jet. Just like you don't need to drive a vehicle to identify different cars on the road. Neither Fravor or West could do it anyway from the blurry video.

I have never seen Fravor demonstrate as in depth analysis as West. So is his knowledge as a fighter pilot really superior and West an idiot? Which seems to be your assertion.

Why not go over to Metabunk and do yourself a favour? Tell Mick West he's an idiot, like you called him earlier in the thread, and David Fravor knows betters. Then come back here and tell us what he thought of your comments.

If Fravor has turned his own camera on then we'd maybe have had something more substantial to look at. I'm not sure if he felt a bit of an idiot for not doing so?

But until we get a definitive answer I am not pursuing this further.

a reply to: ctj83

-> Could Cash Landrum, the Minot UFO, Rendlesham and other UAP encounters be the result of a Soviet nuclear platform placed aboard some sort of odd looking spy drone? Could the TTSA video craft be that same technology 40 years out?

That old nuclear connection again. It's possible if highly speculative. Rendlesham went on for 3 nights in Dec 1980. Then Cash-Landrum happened just after. Literally the day after. Weird stuff was going on at Kirtland AFB trying to control and reprogram Soviet satellites before those incidents in 1980. The outlier would be Minot as that was years before either incident.

Maybe the next episode of Unintended will reveal something?

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: 1point92AU

ID another fighter jet from a grainy video

You said it yourself


“A grainy video”


To ID it as a ufo, would that be any better?

That proves my point. West is relying upon visual evidence such as his claim it's an exhaust plume. Fravor is relying upon his 18 years experience as a fighter jet pilot and shows how the Gimbal flight characteristics cannot be another fighter jet.

Fravor doesn't claim Gimbal is a UFO. He proves how it's not another fighter jet.

originally posted by: Guest101

originally posted by: 1point92AU
a reply to: beetee

There's nothing extraordinary which requires extraordinary evidence. Fravor does not state Gimbal is a UFO. What he does state based on his 18 years as a fighter pilot who has viewed who knows how many other fighter jets from his cockpit is that Gimbal is not another fighter jet.

Upon viewing the GIMBAL video, Mick West and David Fravor agree on one thing:

David Fravor concludes: It’s not a jet.

Mick West concludes: Rotating glare caused by a rotating gimbal is a very simple explanation.
He explains and demonstrates it very well in this video. A real eye-opener for me was how he shows the rotation of the glare only occurs when the object is directly ahead of the jet.

People continually miss the simple fact that if the rotation of the object was being caused by the rotating gimbal then the entire background (clouds) would have to EQUALLY rotate the same number of degrees.

Yet....as I have stated in many past posts....it does not. I'm not arguing the object is a UFO. I'm pointing out West is wrong about it being another fighter jet.

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: 1point92AU

So what did he identify it as?
If he has 18 years of xp and he says it was not an unidentified flying object, then what did he identify it as?

I'm not debating what the object is and I could care less. I'm pointing out West's assessment is wrong and Fravor's assessment is correct. Fravor doesn't make a claim as to what the object is. He makes a claim as to what the object isn't.

Tonight could be very interesting........

a reply to: mirageman

It's ironic how you guys keep proving my argument and you don't even realize it.

The fact West has to go through a ridiculously long attempt to prove his incorrect assumption versus Fravor's 2 second look at the video proves the value of 18 years and 3,000 plus hours in a fighter jet cockpit.

Fravor knows instantly it's not another fighter jet. Do you not understand how 18 years and 3,000 + hours as a veteran fighter pilot translates to the process of elimination regarding what the object isn't?

What a video game programmer looks at all day:


What a fighter jet pilot looks at all day:

a reply to: 1point92AU

I'm not debating what the object is and I could care less

You clearly do, care about it I mean. What do you think it is, you clearly believe Fravor in terms of his pilots experience.
What is your opinion on what it could be? I am not setting you up here to smash you down after, just curious is all

Just for fun, I used to play the very first version of this on the original PS1 - looking at the graphics here, the programmer and the pilots viewpoints may not be all that different!